9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are service of notice to the respondent, challenge to the order of temporary injunction, legality of the order affecting a non-party, and the right to challenge the order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Service of Notice: The special messenger attempted to serve notice to the 1st respondent, who directed that notice be served at his residence. However, the 1st respondent's mother, staying with him, refused to accept the notice, leading to deemed sufficient service on the 1st respondent. Challenge to Order of Temporary Injunction: The petitioner, a third party, challenged the order dated 26.03.2013 on I.A. No. 925 of 2013 in O.S. No. 329 of 2012, where the 1st respondent sought an injunction against respondents 2 and 3 regarding the construction of a university building. Legality of Order Affecting a Non-Party: The petitioner contended that despite being aware of the construction work being allotted to him, he was not made a party in the suit or the applications for injunction. The order affecting the petitioner, who had already started construction, was deemed unsustainable and challengeable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Right to Challenge Order under Article 227: The judgment highlighted that an order of injunction cannot be passed to affect a person who is not a party to the proceeding. Citing legal precedents, it emphasized that the court should not issue an injunction against someone who is not a party to the case. The petitioner was deemed entitled to challenge the order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the original petition, setting aside the order dated 26.03.2013 on I.A. No. 925 of 2013 in O.S. No. 329 of 2012. The court dismissed I.A. No. 925 of 2013 and clarified that the judgment would not prevent the 1st respondent from impleading the petitioner as a party in the suit or other pending applications for seeking appropriate relief.
|
